No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Holy mountain and supreme council: Mount Athos at the beginning of a new era
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2016
Extract
The establishment of the Supreme Council of Judicious Ordinances, itself a product of modern Ottoman reform begun by Mahmud II (1808–39), added to the establishment of a new framework for an increasingly centralised concept of ‘Beneficient Re-Orderings’ (tanzimat-i hayriye) in the Ottoman Empire. Created on 27 Zilhicce 1253 (24 March 1838) as part of Mahmud’s strategy to dismantle the Grand Vizirate and shift the locus of power closer to himself, the Meclis-i Vala-yi Ahkam-i Adliye consequently figured prominently also in the famous Hatt-i şerif (imperial decree) of Gülhane of 3 November 1839, by which date the Tanzimat are usually understood to have begun ‘officially’.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright ©The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1989
References
1. As a general introduction into the reign of Mahmud II in English see St.Shaw, J. and Shaw, E.K., History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Volume II: Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey, 1808–1975 (Cambridge 1977) 1–54 Google Scholar and 443–5 ([selected] Bibliography). For more recent work see sections DDE and DDEA in Turkologischer Anzeiger/Turkology Annual, so far vols. 1–14 (Vienna 1975–88), the most important Current Bibliography in the field (published as appendices to Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 67 (1975) ff.; from 1977 also independently: Selbstverlag des Orientalischen Instituts, Wien). On Mahmud himself the most recent general account in English is in EI, s.n. (2) Mahmud II (by A. Levy).
2. For the Tanzimat period and the Tanzimat reforms in general see Shaw and Shaw, op. cit. 55–171 and 445–53, as well as the excellent account bv Davison, R.H., Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–1876 (New York 1973 2)Google Scholar, with annotated bibliography. The Turkologischer Anzeiger/Turkology Annual (as in n.1) lists work relating to the period in question under sections DDF and DDFA.
3. Mahmud’s reforms in the central bureaucracy are evaluated in Findley, C.V., Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire. The Sublime Porte 1789–1922 (Princeton 1980) 112–50, 167–75 Google Scholar and passim. The Council’s place vis-à-vis the organisation of the Sublime Porte in c. 1838–39 is shown on Figure IV-1 (p. 143).
4. Translated as ‘Grand Council of Justice’ in many Western accounts: Davison, op. cit. 28. For a detailed description of various Ottoman conciliar bodies, includine the Supreme Council of Judicious Ordinance see St. J. Shaw, ‘The Central Legislative Councils in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Reform Movement Before 1876’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 1 (1979) 51–84, summarized in Shaw and Shaw, op. cit. 76–81. A valuable collection of primary sources relating to the establishment and development of the Meclis-i Vala-yi Ahkam-i Adliye in the time of Resid Pasha can be found in Kaynar, R., Mustafa Reşit Paşa ve Tanzimat (Ankara 1954) 198–224 Google Scholar (Ottoman Turkish in Latin characters).
5. On the Hatt see Davison, op. cit. 38ff. with n.61 and n.62 (selected bibliography); and Shaw and Shaw, op. cit. 59–61 and 167, n.5.
6. According to the official French version: ‘… notre conseil de justice (augmenté de nouveaux membres, autant qu’il sera nécessaire) auquel se réuniront, à certains jours que nous déterminerons, nos ministres et les notables de l’empire, s’assemblera à l’effet d’établir des lois réglementaires sur ces points de la sécurité de la vie et de la fortune, et sur celui de l’assiette des impôts’. (Turkiye Maarif Vekaleti) (ed.), Tanzimat/(Istanbul 1940) between pages 48 and 49 (‘Tanzimat Fermammn zamamnda nesredilerek dagitilan fransizca tercümesi’).
7. Shaw, , Legislative Councils, 58.Google Scholar
8. ‘Over 90 per cent of the council’s recommendations were promulgated by the sultan without change’: Shaw and Shaw, op. cit. 78.
9. Shaw, , Legislative Councils, 59 Google Scholar; Findley, op. cit., 174.
10. Shaw and Shaw, op. cit. 77.
11. For a facsimile-edition of a sikayet defteri see Majer, H.G. (ed.), Sikayet Defteri. Das ‘Registerbuch der Beschwerden’ vom Jahre 1675. Codex mixtus 683 der Öster-reichischen Nationalbibliothek. Bd. 1: Einleitung, Faksimile des Textes, geographische Indices (Vienna 1984).Google Scholar
12. Shaw, , Legislative Councils, 56, n.1 Google Scholar. The still important work, in Turkish, by Inalcik, H., Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi. Le Tanzimat et la Question Bulgare (Ankara 1943 Google Scholar) is one of the first studies to have extensively used such material.
13. Majer (ed.), op. cit. 22f.
14. Findley, op. cit. 174.
15. Details and a summary in: Kornrumpf, H.-J., Die Territorialverwaltung im östlichen Teil der europäischen Türkei vom Erlass der VUayetsordnung (1864) bis zum Berliner Kongress (1878) nach amtlichen osmanischen Veröffentlichungen (Freiburg im Breisgau 1976) 40–45.Google Scholar
16. Inalcik, H., ‘Application of the Tanzimat and its Social Effects’, Archivum Ottomanicum 5 (1973) 97–127 Google Scholar, esp. 99–102, 106. More detailed, but in Turkish, with quotations from archival sources: Cezar, Y., Osmanli Maliyesinde Bunalim ve Degisim Dönemi (XVIII. yy dan Tanzimat’a Mali Tarih) (Istanbul 1986) 282–6.Google Scholar
17. Details on the tahrir-i emlak of the early 1840s are to be found in Kaynar, op. cit. 115–20 and 238–43. On Ottoman censuses (tahrir-i nüfus) as well as surveys of property (emlak) and income (temettuat) of the taxable population from 1830/1 see St. J. Shaw, ‘The Ottoman Census System and Population, 1831–1914’, IJMES 9 (1978) 325–38.
18. These administrative councils are discussed in Shaw, , ‘The Origins of Representative Government in the Ottoman Empire: The Provincial Representative Councils, 1938–1876’, Winder, R. (ed.), Near Eastern Round Table, 1967–1968 (New York 1969) 53–142 Google Scholar, and in an even wider context by Davison, R.H., ‘The Advent of the Principle of Representation in the Government of the Ottoman Empire’, Polk, W.R. and Chambers, R.L. (eds.), Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East (Chicago 1968) 93–108 Google Scholar. For the Ottoman regulations concerning the provincial meclis-i memleket see Kornrumpf, op. cit. 40–56, and Kaynar, op. cit. 264–83.
19. Inalcik, Application, 99; Moshe Ma’oz, ‘The Impact of Modernization on Syrian Politics and Society during the Early Tanzimat Period’, Polk and Chambers (eds.), Modernization (as in n.18), 333–49, esp. 335–41 (The Position of Vali).
20. Inalcik, Application, lOOf.
21. See ‘Iltizam’ in EI2 (by G. Baer).
22. Inalcik, Application, 102f.
23. A general account of the changes envisaged by the Tanzimat reformers is Shaw, St. J., ‘The Nineteenth Century Ottoman Tax Reforms and Revenue System’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 6 (1975) 421–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Much more detailed, but in Ottoman Turkish, is Vefik, Abdurrahman, Tekalif Kavaidi (Principles of Taxation) 2 vols. (Istanbul 1328–30 H.)Google Scholar, of which the second volume deals with the period after 1839. A summary on the basis of Vefik’s account and more recent work (primarily in South East European languages) can be found in Ursinus, M., Regionale Reformen im Osmanischen Reich am Vorabend der Tanzimat. Reformen der rumelischen Provinzialgouverneure im Gerichtssprengel von Manastir (Bitola) zur Zeit der Herrschaft Sultan Mahmuds II. (1808–39) (Berlin 1982) 8–21 Google Scholar, outlining the situation prior to the Tanzimat-i Hayriye.
24. Compare the preamble of the Hatt-işerif ‘of Gülhane: Bailey, F.E., British Policy and the Turkish Reform Movement: A Study in Anglo-Turkish Relations, 1826–1853 (Cambridge, Mass. 1942) 277.Google Scholar
25. ibid.
26. Vefik, Tekalif I 94–7; Ursinus, Regionale Reformen 17.
27. For the poll-tax in general see Inalcik, H. in EI2 Djizya, s.v. II. Ottoman.Google Scholar
28. Schwarz, K., Osmanische Sultansurkunden des Sinai-Klosters in türkischer Sprache (Freiburg im Breisgau 1970) 17–22.Google Scholar
29. Inalcik, H., ‘Tanzimat’in Uygulanmasi ve Sosyal Tepkileri’, Belleten 28 112 (1964) 623–90 Google Scholar (basically the Turkish version of the work given in n. 16, but with an appendix of documents in Ottoman Turkish with Arabic letters). Reference here is to two of these documents, both from 1840 (pp.662 and 674).
30. Inalcik, Application, 97.
31. ibid. 98, 105.
32. ibid. 106.
33. Andonov-Poljanski, H. (ed.), Britanski Dokumenti za Istorijata na Makedon-skiot Narod II (1840–1847) (Skopje 1977) 5–7 Google Scholar (Public Record Office — Foreign Office 195/176. Turkey. Salonica, 1840). Unlike the first volume of this publication (see n.38) vol. II does not give the English original, but only a translation of each document in Macedonian.
34. Davison, op. cit. 31. Inalcik, Application, 98.
35. Andonov-Poljanski, (ed.), Dokumenti II 7–9.Google Scholar
36. Inalcik, , Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi 29–33 Google Scholar; idem, Application, 115–24.
37. ibid. 112f. On the paper money (esham kavaimi) and its importance for the state budget of 1256 H./1840/1 compare Cezar, op. cit. 295–9.
38. Andonov-Poljanski, H. (ed.), Britanski Dokumenti za Istoriata na Makedon-skiot Narod I (1797–1839) (Skopje 1968) 270–2 Google Scholar (English text, from Public Reford Office — Foreign Office 195/100); also pp. 112–4 (Macedonian translation).
39. For an example of considerable difficulties in the proper enactment of various Tanzimat regulations in the district of Ankara see Kaynar, op. cit. 264–72.
40. Inalcik, Application, 109f.
41. ibid. 123f.
42. The most comprehensive guide to date for the sicills in the Turkish Republic is Vakfi, Türk Dünyasi Arastirmalari (ed.), sŞer’iye Sicilieri, Mahiyeti, Toplu Katalogu ve Seçme Hükümler (Istanbul 1988)Google Scholar. For mahkeme siciliri outside Turkey see çetin, A. ‘Türkiye Haricindeki Osmanli Şer’iyye Sicilleri Hakkinda’, Islam Medeniyeti Mecmuasi 5 1 (1401 H./1981) 49–55.Google Scholar
43. Findey, op. cit. 140; Shaw and Shaw, op. cit. 73; Cezar, op. cit. 287ff.
44. See n.22.
45. This task was soon made the responsibility of the Meclis-i Muhasebe-i Maliye: Cezar, op. cit. 286f.
46. In order not to waste any time, the regulations for the muhassils were printed in the Imperial press, rather than executed by hand. See Kaynar, op. cit. 235f.
47. Suret-i defter. See below.
48. Cezar, op. cit. 286.
49. Not all exemptions were abolished by the Tanzimat: Cezar, op. cit. 283f., n.5. This is particularly true for vakif property.
50. Even in the case of a non-privileged territory the application of the Tanzimat-i Hayriye often required the involvement of the Meclis-i Vala, as in the case of Cyprus: See documents VI and VII in Inalcik, Tanzimatin Uygulanmasi (as in n.29) 672–8 (Ottoman text only).
51. Smyrnakis, G., To Hagion Oros (Athens 1903) 188f.Google Scholar
52. Summarized in Vasdravellis, I.K., Istorika Arheia Makedonias I: Arheion Thessalonikis 1695–1912 (Thessaloniki 1952) 544.Google Scholar
53. Ursinus, M., ‘Ein Reform-Ferman vom 5. Januar 1842 für den Heiligen Berg’, Majer, H.G. (ed.), Osmanistische Studien zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte. In memoriam Vaneo Boskov (Wiesbaden 1986) 164–76 Google Scholar; The transliteration of the document, which was re-typed for publication by the editors, does unfortunately not give all the diacritical marks of the original typescript.
54. Archival evidence from Mount Athos itself seems to suggest that the Holy Mountain established contacts with the Ottoman rulers already during the reign of Orhan (1326–1362): Boskov, V., ‘Jedan originalan nisan Murata I iz 1386. godine u manastiru Svetog Pavla na Svetoj Gori’, Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 27 (1979) 225–46 Google Scholar, esp. 243ff. This is disputed by the Beldiceanus, who regard the document in question as a forgery: Beldiceanu, N. and Beldiceanu-Steinherr, I., ‘Un faux document Ottoman concernant Radoslav Sampias’, Turcica 12 (1980) 161–8.Google Scholar
Important documents from the Ottoman period have recently been published by V. Boškov (with references to the earlier literature except Smyrnakis [as in n.51]): V. Boškov, ‘Jedno originajno pismo-naredba (biti) Murata II za Svetu Goru’, Hilan-darski zbornik 4 (Beograd 1978) 131–6; idem, ‘Ein Nisan des Prinzen Orhan, Sohn Süleyman Čelebis, aus dem Jahre 1412 im Athoskloster Hilandar’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 71 (1979) 127–52; idem, ‘Dokumenti Bajazita II u Hilandaru (Sveta Gora). Komentar i regesti’, Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 31 (1981) 131–54; idem, ‘Mara Branković u turskim dokumentima iz Svete Gore’, Hilandarski zbornik 5 (Beograd 1983) 189–214 + 7 plates; idem, ‘Jedan ferman Mehmeda III u Hilandaru iz 1601. godine’, Istoričeski časopis 29–30 (Beograd 1983) 181–6. Equally on the basis of Ottoman archival material (more specifically: tahrir defterleri) H. Lowry, ‘A note on the population and status of the Athonite monasteries under Ottoman rule (ca. 1520)’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 73 (1981) 115–35.
55. At the beginning of the 20th century, the 1324 H./1903–4 edition of the official Ottoman statistical yearbook for Selanik (Salonica) lists Mount Athos as a kaza (i.e. the basic Ottoman territorial unit), but with no administrative council (meclis-i idare) nor court (mahkeme), both of which were essential bodies in any ‘ordinary’ kaza. See 1324 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Selanik Vilayeti Salnamesidir. Defa 19 (Selanik 1324) 289–92.
56. On the status of Mount Athos under Ottoman rule and its internal structure see Lemerle, P. and Wittek, P., ‘Recherches sur l’histoire et le statut des monastères Athonites sous la domination Turque’, Archives d’Histoire du Droit Oriental 3 (Wetteren 1948) 411–72 Google Scholar and Meyer, P., Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster (Leipzig 1894 reprint Amsterdam 1965)Google Scholar. Hasluck, F.W., Athos and its Monasteries (London 1924)Google Scholar presents a convenient synopsis of Western (and Russian) travellers’ accounts dealing with the Holy Mountain during the Ottoman period. The importance for the Holy Mountain and other Christian communities of the so-called ‘letters of protection’ (ahdname) which — allegedly — go back to the earliest Muslim rulers (but are forgeries: Schwarz, op. cit. 6–8) is illustrated by the prominent place they occupy in a Karamanli history of the Holy Mountain from the beginning of this century: (Stromnitza Mitropoliti) Sofronios Efendi (Hazretleri), Agion Oros Tarihi ([Constantinople]: K. Zividis veN. Deodati Matpaasinda tap olunmus dir 1901) 20–5, 39–44.
57. The exact fiscal status of the Holy Mountain has yet to be established, particularly for the earliest period until the sixteenth century. A number of fiscal ‘exemptions’ of monastic property in the late fifteenth/early sixteenth centuries are mentioned by Boškov, Dokumenti Bajazita, esp. 141–3 and 147–51. See also Lowry, art. cit.
58. Boškov, , Dokumenti Bajazita, 141–3 Google Scholar (reigns of Bayezid II and Selim I).
59. The maktu of Mount Athos is already reported by Gerlach (1578): Hasluck, op. cit. 32.
60. For the emergence and development of so-called ‘extraordinary’ taxes in the Ottoman Empire see Incalcik, H., ‘Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600–1700’, Archivant Ottomanicum 6 (1980) 283–337 Google Scholar; Sućeska, A., ‘Die Ent-wicklung der Besteuerung durch die Avariz-i divaniye und die Tekalif-i örfiye im Osmanischen Reich während des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts’, Südost-Forschungen 27 (1968) 89–130 Google Scholar. Also Ursinus, Regionale Reformen 56f., n.l.
61. Shortly before the beginning of the Tanzimat-i Hayriye, the particulars of the Holy Mountain’s exemptions (muafiyetler) were confirmed in a firman of 7 Zilkade 1249 H./18 March 1834 to which the copyist gave the title ‘exalted imperial decree containing the re-affirmation of the exemptions of the monks of the island of Aynaroz’ (cezire-i Aynaroz rahiblerinin tekid-i muafiyetlerini navi emr-i alisan): Historical Archive of Northern Greece (Thessaloniki), Mahkeme Sicilien Selanik (henceforth quoted as MSS) No. 229, p.26. I am most grateful to the then Director of the Archive, Professor V. Dimitriades, for his assistance and kind permission to photocopy this and other documents from the Ottoman court registers.
62. The changes were introduced at the instigation of Seyyid Ali Riza, director of the Imperial Mint (darbhane naziri): MSS 229, p.26. On Ali Riza see Pakalin, M.Z., Maliye Teşkilâti Tarihi (1442–1930) vol. 2 (Ankara 1977) 502–7.Google Scholar
63. MSS 229, p.28f. ‘Another exalted firman concerning the poll-tax of the island [of Aynaroz]’ (cezire-i mezbure cizyesine dair diger emr-i ali), dated 11 Zilkade 1249 H./22 March 1834.
64. MSS 229, p.27 ‘Firman about the poll tax of Aynaroz, containing its recent increment, its conditions and its order’ (zamm-i cedidi vesurut ve nizami havi Aynaroz cizyesi emri). dated 8 Sevval 1249 H./18 February 1834. This document mentions a total of 1.032 cizye receipts for Mount Athos, in three rates. The highest rate (ala) paid 48 piastres, the medium rate (evsat) 24 piastres, the lowest rate (edna) 12 piastres.
65. The cizye figures for 1250 H./1834–5 were based on a total of (equally) 1.032 cizye receipts: MSS 229, p.28f.
66. Based on a total of 1.356 cizye receipts: MSS 234, p. 176f. (firman dated 26 Sevval 1253 H./23 January 1838).
Whereas the cizye figures stated in the firmans are to be regarded as nominal, those listed in the skills under the heading of ‘bogca-i evrak’ (or similar) may represent the actual numbers of cizye receipts issued by the local administration. For the period 1830–1839, the following numbers of cizye evraki (in three categories) issued for the monks of the Holy Mountain can be found in the sicills of Salonica:
| ‘high’ | ‘middle’ | ‘low’ | Total | |
| (ala) | (evsat) | (edna) | ||
| 1246 H. | 60 | 496 | 180 | 736 MSS 233, p.69 |
| [1250 H.] | 274 | 660 | 110 | 1.044 MSS 229, p.110 |
| 1251 H. | 11 | 967 | 63 | 1.041 MSS 231, p.184 |
| 1253 H. | 109 | 963 | 274 | 1.346 MSS 230, p.237 |
| 1254 H. | 102 | 983 | 231 | 1.316 MSS 234, p.191f. |
| 1254 H. | 105 | 983 | 271 | 1.359 MSS 235, p. 107 |
68. Ursinus, , Reform-Ferman, 167 and 171 (line 17).Google Scholar
69. ibid. 167 and 171 (line 22). Here, the additional maktu is called ‘customary income’ (avaid-i mutade), amounting to an additional 1.600 piastres per annum.
70. ibid. 167 and 171 (line 23).
71. H. Inalcik in EI,2 s.v. Djizya, II: Ottoman, 563.
72. Schwarz, op. cit. 19.
73. ‘Depuis 150 ans, une succession d’accidents et des causes diverses ont fait qu’on a cessé de se conformer au code sacré des lois et aux règlements qui en découlent, et la force et la prospérité antérieures se sont changées en faiblesse et en appauvrissement: c’est qu’en effet un empire perd toute stabilité quand il cesse d’observer ses lois’ (from the text of the Hatt-i Şerif of Gülhane as quoted in n.6). Compare Kaynar, op. cit. 227, 244. It must be kept in mind, however, that this emphasis on the Sharia does not necessarily reflect the real aims of the tax reforms. According to Shaw, the aim was to shift ‘the tax burden from the land to urban wealth’ (Ottoman Tax Reforms, 421).
74. Inalcik, , Tamimat’in Uygulanmasi, 662 Google Scholar; idem, Application, 102.
75. See his figures for the county of Niš: Application, 116, n.51.
76. None of the skills of the kadis of Salónica for the period 1838–1843 (Nos.235–241) contains a copy of such a document.
77. Compare Ursinus, Regionale Reformen 41f. For the announcement, by means of a firman, of the new Ottoman quarantine regulations, see above, n.33.
78. Maliye yeni seri, No. 13663, folia 93f.: Firman dated 22 Zilkade 1257, concerning ‘the survey of the land income of the Aynaroz (Athos) monasteries prepared so as to secure duly proportionate state revenues’ (Inalcik, Application, 107, n.26).
79. MSS 240, 33–35 ‘Exalted firman concerning the terms of administration of the island of Aynaroz’ (Aynaroz ceziresinin suret-i idaresine dair emr-i alişan), dated 22 Zilkade 1257 H. For an edition of this document see above, n.53).
80. Ursinus, , Reform-Ferman, 166 Google Scholar (translation) and 170, lines 8–12 (transliteration).
81. The Holy Mountain’s taxes (in cash) due to the Treasury in 1838–9 consisted of:
| 38.352/2 | piastres | (poll-tax) |
| 42.913 | piastres | (lump sum) |
| 81.265 | piastres |
From 1839–40, the sum paid into the Treasury by the muhassil of Aynaroz must have amounted to only 39.855 piastres (equivalent to the new cizye total).
82. Ursinus, , Reform-Ferman, 166 Google Scholar (translation) and 170, line 12 (transliteration).
83. ibid., 166f. (translation) and 170f., lines 13–24 (transliteration).
84. ibid., 167 (translation) and 171f., lines 25–32 (transliteration).
85. Inalcik, Application, 114f.
86. Ursinus, Reform-Ferman, 167f. (translation) and 172 lines 32–39 (transliteration).
87. From 1 June 1840 (till 30 April 1843) the two epitropoi of Mount Athos were prohegoumenos Dionysios of Lavra and exarch Hilarion of Iviron. M.I. Gedeon, Ho Athos. Anamnesis-Engrapha-Semeiosis (Constantinople 1885) 128, 325. I owe this reference to the kindness of my colleague A.A.M. Bryer.
88. Pakalin, op. cit. vol. 3, 38–66.
89. Ursinus, , Reform-Ferman, 168f Google Scholar. (translation) and 172–4, lines 40–70 (transliteration).